My significant other took figure skating lessons as a child and although nothing monetary every came back out of those lessons she has stated time and again that she is very easily influenced and if it wasn't for the environment she was put in, she would have gotten in with 'the wrong crowd' in school if she didn't have some sort of regiment.
Looking back her parents really struggled to pay for it as the cost of the skates/lessons ice time was close to $10k/year. They had two daughters who both were in the program. She was the "poor" one of them all, although no one is poor if you can afford figure skating.
She didn't appreciate what her parents had done for her until she had grown up and realized the amount of trouble she avoided by having to be involved in figure skating, along with how much it cost her parents.
Yes "rich kid sports" are sadly not free and accessable to everyone. Anyone can scrape some change together for a soccer ball, football or basketball cheap and have their kids spend hours and hours playing with them. The sports which require equipment, lessons and/or trainers are obviously going to be more expensive to learn.
If parents go into it with the expectation that their are providing a safe culture for their children to socialize, learn how to fail and try again while also becoming proficient at a skill/sport then there is nothing wrong with it. The problem arises when parents pay for their children's sport, expecting a monetary return on investment rather than investing in the experience for their children and realize it is probably going to be a one way street.
My daughter did competitive FS too. Pricey but worth every penny. She has grown up to be an amazing person.
Family and friends couldn't believe the cost or that we were foolish enough to pay for it. But it really was a worthwhile experience. After pre-juvenile we were probably paying 20-30K+ per year including travel. The joke among our circle of skater families was that having a kid in competitive FS was like buying a new car every year. LOL we drug her skates everywhere we went so she could keep in shape.
Athletes getting preferential treatment during admissions is as old as alumni giving. You cannot separate one from the other. Families have known this for generations and take steps to optimize for it just as they do with SAT prep. The resulting reality is that every collegiate sport is ultimately a "rich kid sport". Just as SAT prep, orchestra and debate are "rich kid activities".
The author suggests that no one falls into the river and comes out a water polo star. The same is true for every varsity sport and every varisty player regardless of ethnicity. No one stumbles onto the hard top and pick themselves up as a D1 basketball player either.
It takes talent, hard work and yes money/time for training, club/travel teams and equipment. Facts that the family of every varsity athlete knows all too well.
With the hours my daughter puts into practice and travel (yes she plays a rich white sport apparently) it is a minor miracle she can maintain her k-12 grades at all, yet she does. If she ends up playing for her college it will mean hundreds of hours of practice and play on their behalf while being forced to maintain her GPA. If she were to be injured while representing her college she would likely not be covered by the college healthcare in any way and would likely loose her scholarship. Interestingly enough the same source (The Atlantic) has an article on exactly this (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/05/i-...)
Considering what colleges are potentially asking and expecting from their athletes, do I think it would be inappropriate to favor them against non-athletes during admissions? No, I don't.
Well, in a post-truth apartheid, separating kids from their parents in concentration camps is A-okay and discrimination isn't discrimination even when it's obvious. Red means go and green means stop. What the court is reinforcing is: there are N >= 2 sets of rules: one for most people, probably one for the very poor, and one for the very rich. You can rape an unconscious girl behind a dumpster, and only serve six months if you're very rich. Or be famous and connected like Jimmy Savile, and then you can rape disabled children and never be punished for it.